Mainstream media are busily promoting a familiar narrative for last week’s terrorist attacks in Paris. As usual this narrative demonizes Islam, calls for a reduction in civil rights, and bolsters existing military aggressions. However, a growing number of serious questions have arisen about the attacks. Until such questions are answered, citizens must consider that these events might be another pretext for an ongoing political agenda.

The Paris attacks are reported to have occurred in two parts. The first was the January 7th shooting of twelve people in and around the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a tabloid that often published offensive cartoons including some about the Prophet Mohammad. The second attack occurred the next day and was said to be the work of Amedy Coulibaly, a 32-year old Senegalese Frenchman who began shooting police officers at the scene of an accident and then took hostages in a Kosher grocery.

Some parts of the story have already proven to be inaccurate. For example, FOX News and NBC falsely reported that two of the suspects were in custody, based on information from “two consistently reliable U.S. counterterrorism officials.” One 18-year old widely reported to be a suspect turned himself in (145 miles away) and was released 50 hours later due to insurmountable contradictions.

Questions that remain unanswered include the following.

The Charlie Hebdo gunmen, identified by police as brothers Cherif and Said Kouachi, were said to display professional training as if they were highly-skilled Special Operations soldiers. They were calm and controlled, well equipped, and well trained. Exactly where did they get their training and high-tech equipment?

Coulibaly was identified by DNA testing in only two hours. Although rapid DNA tests can be performed in a matter of hours, a match requires DNA from the suspect. How did the testing match with this man in such a short time? Did authorities have his DNA or was it already in a database? In either case, how did that happen?

Videos quickly showed two people in the Hebdo getaway car with one in the driver’s seat. Why did authorities name and interrogate a third suspect (who turned out to not be involved) as the getaway car driver?

Why would the Koachi brothers wear balaclavas (i.e. ski masks) to hide their identity and then simply leave Said’s national ID card in the car? If they took the time to hide their faces, why would they bring their IDs with them?

Why did the masked attackers work to make sure they were quickly portrayed as Muslims and members of al Qaeda during the attacks? Witnesses said one shouted to onlookers—”Tell the media it was al-Qaeda in Yemen.” Other videos and reports indicate that they repeatedly shouted “Allahu Akbar” and proclaimed that they were avenging the Prophet Mohammad. Who benefits from this?

How did the attackers escape (to the northeast—the longest route through Paris) despite the police having raised the “alarm level for the greater Paris area to its highest level.” Did they have logistical support?

Why does the video of the shooting of victim Ahmed Merabet, reportedly killed by a shot to the head, suggest that he was not shot in the head?

How did Helric Fredou die? A Paris police commissioner conducting the investigation, Fredou died while preparing a report on the crimes. And why did Western media not report his death for at least three days?

The alleged Kosher grocery gunman, Amedy Coulibaly, met with the President of France just a few years ago. What are the odds of such a coincidental meeting and does the connection relate to the attacks?

Many people have become skeptical about mainstream accounts of terrorism. This is due to the fact that authorities, like the FBI or CIA, are often found to be involved in some way and the events always support political agendas. Therefore it is not surprising to hear people claiming that intelligence agencies were involved in these attacks, or that the attacks related to political manipulations that would “shore up France’s vassal state status to Washington.”

Whatever the truth, it seems wise to consider all possibilities when mainstream media promote stories that feed the war machine and reduce freedom. Refraining from judgment until the facts are clearer is always the best approach.

Hello.
1.
The brothers went to Yemen in early 2011. According to one brother talking on the phone to BMFTV it was there that Al Awaki gave them the order to till Charlie Hebdo (Al Awaki was killed in late 2011).
Please note that several points show that these guys were not very professional. (They didn’t know the correct house number. They claim not to kill women (and saved on purpose one inside Charlie) but killed one female journalist. They claimed only to kill people who are part of Charlie Hebdo and responsible (therefore saving all people after they left Pars even the owner of the printing office) but they killed cleaner in the entrance of Charlie.

2.
No. It was Coulibaly who was identified by DNA (and also by eyewitnesses!). A stain of DNA existed because Coulibaly spent three years in prison. He left the prison a couple of months ago. In prison he got to know at least one brother.

3.

This was based on one (and only one eye witness). For example the person whose car was taken by the brothers (as all other people who meet them on the way) speak of two people.

4.

We can only speculate on this. (And it is certainly less surprising than Al Suqami …)

Was it on purpose?

Was it an accident (an ID is very useful if you want to flee and to not to have trouble by a police control on the way to Rue Nicolas Appert).

5.

They also told this people who survived inside Charlie Hebdo (Coco for example). They apprently wanted to make sure people understand that it was a revenge for the cartoons of Charb (when they entered the room they asked his name and wanted the person to get up (so apparently they didn’t know how he looked like).

6.

Once you’re on the peripherique (highway around inner Paris) it is hard to follow. There was no police nearby. But police never lost track as they in the late afternoon it was clear that the brothers were in teh area of Aines. (Even a support wouldn’t help by the way once you’re close at the peripherique of Paris)

7.

I belivee the reaon for the absence of blood is the fact that he was shot at very close range (if you want to see blood take a look at the images from inside Charlie Hebdo ….)

Btw

The shooting happened on the bvd Richard Lenoir. This is a big street (two car lines in both direction and small park inbetween. Surrounded very close by buildings with 5-6 floors. So, please, after a shooting there are within a minute lots of witnesses on the ground. How can you stage a shooting there ??? And what sense would it have?? (The only thing strange ist that there was no traffic at that moment)

8.
Helric Fredou died reportedly by shooting himself in his office in Limoges. Limoges is 4 hours away from Paris. He was not a high up in the investigation. France is extremely centralized country and of course all important people for this investigation are in Paris at the moment. He interviewed the familiy of the victims. (I can understand suspicion if he interviewed witnesses but families of the victims?) And also he replaced a guy in Limoges who shot himself two years ago. He was claimed to have been in depression.

9.
He was part of 9 (!) workers at Coca Cola where Sarkozy spend a visit and Sarkozy talked to the 9 (!) briefly.

Hope this helps.
That it is a big question if these guys were pushed by a mole is a totally different issue by the way. But it far too early to come to a conclusion there.

Good answers.
As for the ID card,(“an ID is very useful if you want to flee and to not to have trouble by a police control” ) this is one explanation, a second one is, that probable they changed gear, and during this it happened.
As to point 8) the mother and the physician of Helric Fredou denied a depression, (which is not easy to see or diagnose), but it seems he had to make an important phone call, his supervisor wanted to expel him from the investigation and because of this he probably killed himself. In this issue, all depends on the autopsy report.

Does it not beggar belief that religious Muslims, enraged by some cartoons, would whip out Kalashnikovs and a rocket propelled grenade launcher and attack the cartoonists in the middle of Paris? This sounds like a script from a work of fantastical fiction.

Think about this. Charlie Hebdo was sold all over the place, in newsstands across France. If you were an enraged Muslim, and were going to express your indignation by some act, would you not typically opt for a lesser act?

For example, you could simply grab a stack of the magazines and toss them into the nearest dumpster. Were there any such lesser incidents? If not, is there any objective sign that Muslims were all that enraged by the cartoons? Granted, I’m sure they didn’t like this, but there are a lot of things one doesn’t like.

If an ordinary Muslim youth really was so angry about the cartoons and confronted a cartoonist, at the outer limit, I can imagine him using his fists. I am pretty sure that a regular person is not capable of killing a dozen people who are, doubtless, begging for mercy. That takes professional killers. But professional killers would not leave their ID in the getaway car, would they now? Hmm….

Just on the basis of the above, isn’t the nature of this event fairly obvious?